Lying to prevent a greater evil?

[SighGuy]

I completely understand the point. The ends do not justify the means. But this is a general rule, not an exclusive rule. The ends of David’s decision was to survive, though the means of it violated the law of eating the showbread. The ends of Jesus’s decision was to heal a man (well, really it was probably more to make a point), but the means were in violation of Sabbath law.

Following these rules without bearing in mind their context will inevitably result in ridiculous situations. Again, I repeat:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

That’s the CCC. It does not say “we are weak persons who do not always find the right way” it says “legitimate defense can be… a grave duty”.

Therefore, it is absolutely undeniable fact that we can kill an unjust aggressor to save a life of an innocent (or ourselves). Undeniable fact.

Your position as I understand it is that it is undeniable that, under any circumstance, lying is permissible (it may happen because we are weak, you say, but it is not right. As contrary to killing someone, which is actually a grave duty in certain circumstances, the complete opposite of being weak and sinning venially. The failure, in fact, to perform a grave duty would seem to me a mortal sin but that’s a different subject).

If you combine these two positions, we get this result: in the situation of the endangerment of a person’s life, you have the grave duty of rendering that unjust aggressor incapable of harming another (possibly through lethal means), but you may under no circumstances lie, because that is a (venial in this situation) sin.

Can that possibly be explained to God, when he asks why you shot one of his children and ended his life instead of simply lying and saying that, indeed, no Jews were in your home?

 

[Bookcat]

I completely understand the point. The ends do not justify the means. But this is a general rule, not an exclusive rule.

Yes it is an exclusive commandment.

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism states quote:

“Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it”

Also:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

And last but not least Sacred Scripture:

From Pauls Letter to the Romans:

“There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).”

(quoted by Bl. John Paul II in the Splendor of Truth -so not sure of translation --likely RSV)

And as to:

The ends of Jesus’s decision was to heal a man (well, really it was probably more to make a point), but the means were in violation of Sabbath law.

Jesus did not do an evil (he never sinned) in order to heal. He as the Son of God did what he did -and healed -he did a good by good means. The legal ideas of the those who observed him were not something he had to follow.

 

[Bookcat]

Can that possibly be explained to God, when he asks why you shot one of his children and ended his life instead of simply lying and saying that, indeed, no Jews were in your home?

I did not shoot anyone.

Good night.

 

[Bookcat]

(ok a bit more-- please follow closely)

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned…

(and Paul said the idea that one could do evil for good was justly condemned in his letter to the Romans)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

Now please follow the rest closely.

It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…or “discreet language”.

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin (if there is culpability at all)…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)

Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie (be it ever so slight). Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie.The end does not “justify” the means. It remains a lie. A sin. But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness (I am not encouraging sin here --but it is a reality in daily life). Something that ought not have happened. That is: One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…

(PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

PS:

Catholic Answers Apologist’s answer – similar to mine: catholic.com/quickquestions/is-lying-a-sin-if-done-to-protect-someone-from-death

 

[SighGuy]

I’ve done a lot of research on mental reservation. Strict mental reservation, regrettably, was condemned three hundred and fifty years ago by a pope. It’s too bad, because it appears to be the most effective way to prevent murder in the classic Jew Nazi scenario.

The only clause here that actually gives saving grace to this doctrine as far as I can see is “discreet language” (2489) applied in situations when the right to truth is not applied to a person (2488). Only through this idea of a discreet language, or “no, I don’t have any Jews” and understanding the word have to mean as a possession, which, of course, even if Jews are living in my walls I do not possess them-- then through this idea the doctrine can be salvaged.

Allowing for such a possibility to maintain cleanness and deceive at the same time, as childish and nitpicky as it does seem to me, is satisfactory enough to permit that lying is intrinsically wrong.

In another understanding that might be okay (it was proposed by a priest, not the CCC) we may understand the real question as “do you have any Jews for us to kill?” and thus the answer “no” would be completely legitimate. Regardless of whether this interpretation is permissible by the Church, as I stated above, the Church does have a provision wherein you can use deceptive language where needed and not be guilty.

 

[SighGuy]

Ah! I was writing about discreet language just as you were writing this up as well.

Well, as you see, I have conceded it (it sits slightly sore with me, the nature of discreet language, but such is to be expected. I believe the Catholic Church is perfect in its teachings but accepting them, like accepting the yoke of wisdom [ben sira 6], before it becomes a gold ornament it is still a yoke and unpleasant)

I do thank you for your last reply; initially I had felt like you weren’t replying in a way I really needed to understand.

Goodnight, thanks for the discourse, we’re both doubtless up too late!

 

[LHJOHNSON]

Has anyone heard of elsewhere or thought about the objective right and wrong - lying is always wrong and subjective culpability answer in # 9? I read it in “50 Questions on Natural Law” by Charles Rice. I thought it would elicit some kind of response. Lying is always wrong but the responsibility for lying or any wrongful act can be mitigated. Plus is there any obligation to choose the lesser of two evils?LHJ

 

[Bookcat]

(ok a bit more-- please follow closely)

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned…

(and Paul said the idea that one could do evil for good was justly condemned in his letter to the Romans)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

Now please follow the rest closely.

It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…or “discreet language”.

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin (if there is culpability at all)…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)

Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie (be it ever so slight). Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie.The end does not “justify” the means. It remains a lie. A sin. But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness (I am not encouraging sin here --but it is a reality in daily life). Something that ought not have happened. That is: One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…

(PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

PS:

Catholic Answers Apologist’s answer – similar to mine: catholic.com/quickquestions/is-lying-a-sin-if-done-to-protect-someone-from-death